There's a fuzzy line between taking advantage of your fame and wealth, and using your fame and wealth to take advantage, if you get my distinction. Having neither, IDK where that line is and will never need to know. But from what I've read Tyson was on it.

If I had fame and wealth I'd certainly use it to my advantage as much as possible.
My morals would stop me from doing what he and Trump did tho.

What Tyson and Trump did are miles apart, if Tyson's explanation is to be believed. Unlike Trump, Tyson has been reliably accurate in the past, so I'll believe him until given a reason not to. Based on what we know now, I think the drugging & raping allegation is most likely false, and the other two charges are in that gray area that I mentioned before.

I'd never taken that song as anything other than that. Link explains it really well but I have to say I thought it was pretty obvious. I guess it isn't?

So I finally get around to clicking the link, and I'm blasted right in the face, which I didn't expect. I keep reading, and things move back to where I expected them based on both your posts.

It's more obvious I think the older you are. If you grew up in the 90's or even 2000's (growing up means becoming increasingly socially and self aware), it probably doesn't sound very friendly. With guys like Cosby running around, I'm not surprised if current generations hear that song and imagine Cosby on a rape binge.

edit: Ok, holy crap, I'm repeating the article nearly word for word before I had read it. So...he and I are in agreement then. Sorry if the below sounds repetitious. I really didn't know that's what it was going to say.

That's not how I hear it though, and I understand that this is before the time when a man and a woman spoke matter of factly about fucking. "Do you want to fuck?" followed by "of course, why do you think I'm here?" is so far beyond imaginable for the majority of people back then, that it would be considered offensive EVEN IF they are both there to fuck each others brains out. You could literally scare off your partner by being so matter of fact, back then.

For good or ill, courting and seduction were a game where the woman pretended she was reluctant and the man had to work for it. Politely of course. Obliquely also. A woman "pretending/proclaiming to be tipsy" was absolutely part of the whole process. i.e. I'm signalling that I'm willing, keep doing what you're doing and we'll get there. This joke still exists today and shows up in movies and tv, although it is usually a reference to old days, or older actors/scenes.

I'm not part of the generation where courting was like that, but I'm close to it, and the idea existed and to be frank still exists today on a lot of ways.

I don't find the song creepy, but I understand why it is for a lot of people. Both views are correct, imo.

I should probably finish Isgrim's link...

Last edited by GreenGoo on Mon Dec 03, 2018 2:49 am, edited 1 time in total.

Based on what we know now, I think the drugging & raping allegation is most likely false, and the other two charges are in that gray area that I mentioned before.

I'm doing my best to remain objective, but it's like 2 people accuse you of shoplifting and maybe rifling through someone's purse, and the 3rd person is like "and he kidnapped and murdered my family". The first 2 are in the same ballpark I guess, and the other is so extreme that one of these things is not like the others.

Again, I'm not following along much, although I do stumble across headlines and paragraphs of info.

First of all I had to look up pedantry. Why do people make up words like that?
Second of all I never really listened to Baby It's Cold Outside before. Once I read the lyrics I was shocked. I had no idea they said that to each other.
Once again shows my naivity .
I always thought I knew everything.
(except how to speel)

Edit: It has been explained to me that I am being far too verbose. I rarely delete anything because I don't think it's fair to anyone reading along but in this case it doesn't serve much purpose in the first place, so I'm nuking it. It that's a problem for anyone (not you specifically Jaymann) well then take it up with the forum software for letting me do it.

Well, I like Tyson and hope he's exonerated. I'll like him a good deal less if he's a harrasser. I already like him a little less just for being accused.

Because I fell down the internet rabbit hole of this story for quite a while this morning (although I have no connection to him, I know people who do know Tyson personally, so I was more than typically internet-curious when I heard about this), let me offer a few thoughts:

First, of the three allegations, only two are recent. The other one, first chronologically, was made in this 2014 blog post. It would be the most serious accusation by far - it alleges that in approximately 1984, Tyson drugged and raped an unconscious co-graduate student at the University of Texas - except for the fact that the presentation of the allegation is batshit crazy. Seriously, it's screens and screens of spectacularly kooky before it gets to its one or two paragraph point, which is essentially that she claims that Tyson gave her a coconut shell of water at his apartment one time, she passed out and doesn't remember anything until being at school the next day except that she is certain he raped her during the intervening time. This event, she blames for preventing her from being the first female black astronaut and for the fact that her daughter hasn't spoken to her in four years due to the victim's lifetime of undiagnosed PTSD. And then she caps the whole thing off with a photo of Bill Nye, Tyson, and Barack Obama together and asks Obama how he will protect his daughters from men like Tyson. And none of that is to mention the the spelling mistakes and punctuation errors and so on (at one point, she describes the container her drink was served in as an "account shell"). A credible allegation of anything this is not.

The second allegation is essentially the inverse: it's a very credible allegation of a very insignificant thing. This allegation and the third one are both detailed here. The second one concerns the circumstances around this photograph. It was taken at the woman's request at an American Astronomical Society meeting in 2009. Tyson notices that the woman has a tattoo of the solar system on her upper arm and extending up over her shoulder (which is hidden by her dress). Both parties acknowledge that Neil pushed up the fabric of her dress there to try to determine if her tattoo depicted Pluto as a planet or not. He, of course, is very interested in Pluto's status and says he was just being "enthusiastic". She says it was "creepy" and that, while she agrees that it was not assault and that she did not report it even as harassment at the time (the AAS had no procedure for that then, apparently), she would have reported him for harassment if it happened today. Either way, this was a brief interaction at a public event, where "drinking and dancing" had been occurring and it seems like nothing more than a moment's misjudgment of the boundary of someone's personal space. Not cool but it hardly seems like a career-lynching offence.

The last and most recent allegation is in between the two. This past summer, while filming something unspecified, Tyson had a female production assistant assigned to him. She was his driver, among many other roles, and he says they worked together for weeks and spent "upwards of 100 hours in one-on-one conversation" during that time (source is Tyson's own Facebook post responding to all of these allegations). He clearly feels that they became good friends, discussing lots of personal topics over that time, and that it was thus entirely reasonable for him, towards the end of the production, to invite her to his apartment one evening for "wine and cheese". No one is alleging any physical misconduct here but their perceptions of the evening are very different. He says it was a "no pressure" invitation as a "capstone" to their friendship that she freely accepted and that he "often" served wine and cheese to visitors. She says she felt "pressured" to accept the invitation in order to impress "her superstar boss", that he put on romantic music and "replayed the most graphic parts", that he took off his shirt (but not his undershirt), that he talked about "how every human being needs certain releases in life" and that he said at one point that, if he hugged her, he would "just want more" (he says that "practically everyone she knows on set gets a daily welcome-hug from her", so the possibility of a hug itself seems less out-of-line). The bottom line is that she feels he was straight-up trying to seduce her. She confronted him about it and quit her job the next day. Personally, I tend to think she's probably right here. Tyson's Facebook rebuttal notably doesn't comment on or refute some of her specific points, such as his taking off his shirt, replaying explicit parts of songs, or talking about needing "releases". Also, I have hard time believing that any male who invites a woman, alone, up to his place late in the evening with the offer of alcohol isn't at least hoping for a little action at the end of the night -- or, at least, would not realize that it would appear that way to the woman. Tyson not acknowledging that subtext of such an invitation is either extremely oblivious or just disingenuous.

So, feel free to draw your own moral conclusions from all of that. For myself? Meh. The 1984 allegation would obviously be a big deal but, having read that woman's entire allegation post, I'm sorry but I just don't believe her. The 2009 one seems like the internet trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. The 2018 one definitely sounds sleazy, and Tyson's wife might want to ask some pointed questions about his fidelity, but "guy misreads signals in asymmetric relationship and tries to get a little side action, gets shot down, and respectfully accepts the rejection" doesn't move my moral outrage meter far enough to substantially change my opinion of the guy.

Whatever happened to, "I appreciate the offer, but I don't think that would be a good idea."? Maybe if Tyson fired her the next day she might have a legitimate gripe. Opportunism works both ways if she is looking for a payoff.

First, of the three allegations, only two are recent. The other one, first chronologically, was made in this 2014 blog post. It would be the most serious accusation by far - it alleges that in approximately 1984, Tyson drugged and raped an unconscious co-graduate student at the University of Texas - except for the fact that the presentation of the allegation is batshit crazy. Seriously, it's screens and screens of spectacularly kooky before it gets to its one or two paragraph point, which is essentially that she claims that Tyson gave her a coconut shell of water at his apartment one time, she passed out and doesn't remember anything until being at school the next day except that she is certain he raped her during the intervening time. This event, she blames for preventing her from being the first female black astronaut and for the fact that her daughter hasn't spoken to her in four years due to the victim's lifetime of undiagnosed PTSD. And then she caps the whole thing off with a photo of Bill Nye, Tyson, and Barack Obama together and asks Obama how he will protect his daughters from men like Tyson. And none of that is to mention the the spelling mistakes and punctuation errors and so on (at one point, she describes the container her drink was served in as an "account shell"). A credible allegation of anything this is not.

I have seen blog entries that read exactly like that from a schizophrenic, with the photos being "negatives" to really amp up the creep factor. The targets were the medical professionals that had ever entered into the sphere of his care in even a tertiary way.

Just seeing the blog, let alone reading it, you could feel the crazy emanating from it. He was clearly very sick and probably off his meds.

I think it's safe to say (for me at least) based on what you've written here, and assuming it's factual (which I do), that we can remove this "accusation" from the list.

Ash, thanks for doing the legwork that I was too lazy to do myself. Imma consider him exonerated unless more evidence emerges to the contrary. A married man shouldn't be trying to seduce young women (if indeed he was), but it's hardly a career-ending offense. Doesn't move my outrage meter, anyway.

The FBI had prepared a 53-page sex crimes indictment for Epstein in 2007 that could have sent him to prison for life, according to the Herald. Instead, he cut a deal with Alexander Acosta, then the US attorney in Miami, which allowed him to serve just 13 months — not in federal or state prison, but in a private wing of a Palm Beach county jail.

He was granted work release to go to a “comfortable office” for 12 hours a day, six days a week, despite the fact that the Palm Beach Sheriff’s Department prohibited work release for sex offenders.

Epstein’s deal, called a “non-prosecution agreement,” granted immunity to “any potential co-conspirators,” meaning that if any of Epstein’s powerful friends were involved in his crimes, they would face no consequences. And Acosta agreed that the deal would be kept secret from the victims, preventing them from showing up in court to try to challenge it.

He just settled in a lawsuit, keeping testimony out of court again.

A lawsuit set for trial in Florida state court in December was expected to bring more details of Epstein’s crimes to light. Some of Epstein’s victims were slated to testify for the first time. But on December 4, Epstein reached a last-minute settlement in that suit just before jury selection was to begin, according to the Associated Press. That means that, at least for now, the women will lose the opportunity to testify.

" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. MertonMYT

Well, I like Tyson and hope he's exonerated. I'll like him a good deal less if he's a harrasser. I already like him a little less just for being accused.

Because I fell down the internet rabbit hole of this story for quite a while this morning (although I have no connection to him, I know people who do know Tyson personally, so I was more than typically internet-curious when I heard about this), let me offer a few thoughts:

I appreciate the write-up of what you found.

I agree on the 2014 Blog post sounding off-the-wall crazy. My personal on that one was that it seemed excessively strange for someone she hung out with all the time and saw as a big brother to suddenly get all rapey on her, and in a way that left her with no evidence except a strong feeling. It just doesn't make logical sense for someone who, by all accounts, was a good looking, decent, and athletic genius to decide to drug and rape a close friend. I won't deny something weird probably happened to her - I just sincerely doubt he was the root cause. He wasn't some stranger at a party or guy she just started dating. He was a long time friend with no indicated prior bad behavior. That has weight in my book.

The second "incident" is a nothing. A boundary breach - but one with very relevant context. Not even sexual. Not saying it should be the new norm or he should do it again, but it's so minor that you get over it and move on with life in about 30 seconds.

The third is a questionably bad decision with two people who were clearly seeing things two different ways, but not an assault or career-ending move. It was apparently even cleared up between them the next day without HR, lawsuits, and lynching.

In my opinion, Tyson is simply a human being and I don't see him as any less of a good public figure.

Last month, during a conference for scholars who study international affairs, Simona Sharoni, a professor of women's and gender studies at Merrimack College, asked a crowded hotel elevator what floor everyone needed. Richard Ned Lebow, a professor of political theory at King’s College London, replied, “Ladies’ lingerie” (or, as Sharoni remembers it, “Women’s lingerie.”) Several people laughed. Was that sexual harassment?

Not particularly funny (it's old as the hills) but apparently some women are losing their minds over it.

Last month, during a conference for scholars who study international affairs, Simona Sharoni, a professor of women's and gender studies at Merrimack College, asked a crowded hotel elevator what floor everyone needed. Richard Ned Lebow, a professor of political theory at King’s College London, replied, “Ladies’ lingerie” (or, as Sharoni remembers it, “Women’s lingerie.”) Several people laughed. Was that sexual harassment?

Not particularly funny (it's old as the hills) but apparently some women are losing their minds over it.

Last month, during a conference for scholars who study international affairs, Simona Sharoni, a professor of women's and gender studies at Merrimack College, asked a crowded hotel elevator what floor everyone needed. Richard Ned Lebow, a professor of political theory at King’s College London, replied, “Ladies’ lingerie” (or, as Sharoni remembers it, “Women’s lingerie.”) Several people laughed. Was that sexual harassment?

I can see why people would be upset. This reminds me of a high school teacher I had. It was a shop class, so it was all guys. The first day he's going over class rules and he says something like "I know you guys cuss, that's alright I don't care. But if someone comes in, like the assistant principal, watch your language". Then he told a story about how he went home after getting out of the army and at the dinner table he said "Pass the fucking salt" to his mom or someone, because that's how everyone talked to each other in the army mess hall. His point was there's a time and place for things.

That elevator joke is exactly the type of joke I myself might make, but I wouldn't do it in an elevator with men and women in it...unless I knew all the women and knew they wouldn't care. I don't know that I'd agree it's harassment, but if it's in an elevator you are trapped there. So anything anyone says or does in that elevator is forced on you. What if it wasn't a joke, what if it was obscene language? Same principle. If I'm talking to someone then everyone in there HAS to listen to me. That's why I'd watch my language. I think the same applies to jokes.

Last month, during a conference for scholars who study international affairs, Simona Sharoni, a professor of women's and gender studies at Merrimack College, asked a crowded hotel elevator what floor everyone needed. Richard Ned Lebow, a professor of political theory at King’s College London, replied, “Ladies’ lingerie” (or, as Sharoni remembers it, “Women’s lingerie.”) Several people laughed. Was that sexual harassment?

Not particularly funny (it's old as the hills) but apparently some women are losing their minds over it.

Based on my Big Company Harassment Training™, this is textbook harassment. It's an unwelcome verbal statement relating to gender.

The HR repercussions would have realistically depended on your recent performance reviews, how well you get along with your supervisor, how public the statement was, and how willing the harassed was to pursue an actionable outcome.

But this is Day One (in the morning) training as to what harassment constitutes.

"The world is suffering more today from the good people who want to mind other men's business than it is from the bad people who are willing to let everybody look after their own individual affairs." - Clarence Darrow

Still just the same one from 2014, with a less crazy wrapper and no mention of all their positive history together. That article tells it like a one night stand where she was drugged. Her previous accusation (a rambling and, at times, almost incoherent blog post) didn't include waking up naked in his bed, and did include how they were very close friends. IIRC, that previous story made it sound like she woke up in a hallway after he gave her some water, and she "knew" she had been raped.

If she had started with this kind of story, I'd probably be more "Whoa..." but knowing what she's said before I'm not.

This is the monster I have been protecting for 30 years. I no longer am afraid of the consequences of revealing this truth. Just think of me as Ammit: the Goddess that devours the hearts of the unrighteous at the Scale of Maat! I am leading hi to face death…. the death of his deception and illusion.

(... and later...)

I only recall being at the astronomy department the next day. I do not know how long I was in his apartment. I have no idea how I got back to my apartment. I do not even remember waking up the next day.

(... and later...)

I was a grad student in Astronomy at UT Austin, the sam time that Mr Tyson was there. I was studying Galactic Astronomy with the de Vaucoleurs. My dream was to become the first Black Female Astronaut. I was like 15 years ahead of Emma Mae Jamison. I wen to his apartment to visit like I did almost everyday. He was like my big brother, or so I thought. He offered me a glass of water. I accepted a liquid in a cup made out of a coconut shell. I recall coming back to consciousness briefly, then next thing I remember is seeing him in the hallway the next day. I have lived in this nightmare for 30 years, and it stops today.

Again - I'm only increasingly skeptical because her story is now changing as she's getting more attention. If Tyson did this, hang him upside-down by his toes and let the villagers throw stones. I'm just not feeling it. What I'm feeling is someone who's deeply disturbed being given attention and starting to ramp it up. I'm not saying she wasn't traumatized by something, I'm just saying I'm not boarding this particular crazy train just yet.

Another of his victims was a woman at a party who had a solar system tattoo. He could only see 3/4 of the system and he didn't ask her permission before sliding her sleeve up (a couple inches?) to see if Pluto was represented. The other was a personal assistant he was really close with after spending six months working side by side. He invited her over for cheese and wine and she felt he was making a pass at her that she didn't like. They resolved it the next morning without legal intervention.

There is not, as of yet, a backlog of former students who are claiming they had to trade sexual favors for grades, or a list of women accusing him of rape. There's one woman with a really old, changing story - one woman with an arm that got touched - and one woman who thinks he was making a pass and they settled it like adults.

Leslie Moonves, the former boss of CBS, will not receive a $120m (£95m) severance package after an inquiry into alleged sexual misconduct.

The US broadcaster said it had found that were grounds to fire Mr Moonves "for cause" including his "willful and material misfeasance".

Mr Moonves stepped down in September following fresh claims he had sexually harassed or assaulted six more women.

He said that the accusations made in The New Yorker magazine were untrue.

In a statement, CBS said Mr Moonves had failed to co-operate fully with the company's investigation into the allegations against him.

It also said he had had violated company policy and was in breach of his employment contract and as a consequence he would not receive any severance payment from CBS.

At the time of Mr Moonves' departure as chairman and chief executive of CBS, where he had worked for 23 years, the company said it had set $120m aside as a possible payment to him pending an investigation.

Time and tide melt the snowman.

There are worlds out there where the sky is burning, where the sea's asleep and the rivers dream, people made of smoke and cities made of song. Somewhere there's danger, somewhere there's injustice and somewhere else the tea is getting cold. Come on, Ace, we've got work to do.
-- The Doctor

I'm sure ALL the info is not out, but star of show that she appeared 3 times on harassed her (understood), she got $9.5 Million "settlement" in hush money - the agreement she would not talk (understood), now she decides that she needs to tell all. What is confusing is: does that violate the "contract" of not speaking and does she have to give the money back? Any lawyers want to weigh in?

I find television very educational. Every time somebody turns on the set, I go into the other room and read a book. - Groucho Marx

She probably hasn't actually received the payment yet. From a brief skimming of the article, I think that she basically decided not to take the settlement. So she probably won't get the money. But I doubt that she has to pay anything back. Though IANAL.

It would be tacky for a comedian who had not spent years whipping it out in front of unwilling co-workers to complain about people trying to explain to him what’s appropriate and what’s not. For Louis C.K. to write and tell those jokes would require a breathtaking, Kevin Spacey–level lack of self-awareness, and there was a time that self-awareness was C.K.’s brand. So what the fuck is going on here? For one clue, here’s a joke C.K. told at the expense of the Parkland teens, of all people, children who responded to an unthinkable tragedy by dedicating their lives to making the world a better place:

You’re not interesting because you went to a high school where kids got shot. Why does that mean I have to listen to you? Why does that make you interesting? You didn’t get shot, you pushed some fat kid in the way, and now I gotta listen to you talking?

One of the things that makes listening to the new C.K. material so painful is he hasn’t lost his talent: his timing and delivery are still there, somewhere, peeking out under all the racism and ranting about political correctness and—for some reason—anger at gun control activists. Those are pretty specific targets, actually, and C.K. tackles them with nearly the same control of his craft he had before his downfall. In other words, it would be wrong—and not giving the comedian enough credit—to think of this as a meltdown instead of a deliberate rebranding, a bid to spend his twilight years spreading hate on the Trump rally circuit.

Time and tide melt the snowman.

There are worlds out there where the sky is burning, where the sea's asleep and the rivers dream, people made of smoke and cities made of song. Somewhere there's danger, somewhere there's injustice and somewhere else the tea is getting cold. Come on, Ace, we've got work to do.
-- The Doctor